Case F-17/06: Action brought on  21 February 2006  — Marc Vereecken v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-02-21
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, equal treatment, indemnification, personnel administration, professional career, promotion, staff assessment, unpaid leave

C 96/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.4.2006

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments relied on by the applicants are
identical to those relied on in Case F-128/05 Adolf and Others
v Commission (1).

The pleas and main arguments relied on by the applicants are
identical to those relied on in Case F-128/05 Adolf and Others
v Commission (1).

(1) OJ C 60 of 11.3.2006, p. 56.

(1) OJ C 60 of 11.3.2006, p. 56.

Action brought on 21 February 2006 — Marc Vereecken v
Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 15 February 2006 — Augenault and
Others v Council

(Case F-16/06)

(2006/C 96/60)

(Language of the case: French)

Parties

(Case F-17/06)

(2006/C 96/61)

(Language of the case: French)

Parties

Applicant(s): Marc Vereecken (Brussels, Belgium)
by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume)

(represented

Applicants: Françoise Augenault and Others (represented by: G.
Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the action admissible and well founded, including

the objection of illegality contained in it;

— consequently, annul the applicants' pension statements for
in the application of a
March 2005, so as to result
weighting for the capital of their country of residence or, at
least, of a weighting such as to reflect adequately the differ-
ences in the cost of living in the places where the applicants
are deemed to incur their expenditure and therefore to give
effect to the principle of equivalence;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— Annul

the decisions of

the Appointing Authority (AA)
dismissing the applicant's complaint, together with the deci-
sion of the AA of 19 October 2004 and the pay slips for
the months of February 2005 et seq.
in so far as they
change the applicant's grade to A*8, and the decision
awarding merit points, priority points and compensation
points for leave on personal grounds (CCP) adopted by the
AA;

— Inform the AA of

the consequences of annulling the
contested decisions, and in particular: (i) the promotion of
the applicant to grade A*10 (ex A6) with retroactive effect
from 2001, or at least from 1 October 2004, when the
applicant was re-employed; (ii) at least the promotion of
the applicant to grade A*9 with effect from 1 October
2004; (iii) the award to the applicant of the points to which
he is entitled with effect from his promotion,
including
merit points, priority points and transitional points for the
CDRs 2003, 2004 and 2005;

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/39

— Order the defendant to pay compensation for the pecuniary
loss suffered by the applicant as a result of the fact that he
was not promoted to grade A*10 with effect from the
2001 promotion round or at least from 1 October 2004,
including the consequences for his pension;

— Order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-
pecuniary loss sustained by the applicant by reason of the
failure to establish Staff Reports for 1997-1999 and the
excessively late establishment of the Staff Reports for 1999-
2001 and of the Career Development Reports (CDR) for
2003 and 2004;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an Official of the Commission under the former
grade A7 was reemployed on 1 October 2004 under grade A*8
following a CCP of three years.

In his application he sets out four pleas in law, the first of
which alleges the wrongful failure to establish or the late estab-

lishment of his Staff Reports for 1997-1999 and 1999-2001
and of his CDRs for 2003 and 2004.

By his second plea, the applicant submits that his classification
under grade A*8 following his CCP was contrary to Article 6 of
the Staff Regulations. That decision also infringes the principle
of equivalence between the old and new career structures and
the principle of equal treatment and the protection of legiti-
mate expectations.

By his third plea, the applicant alleges that he was the victim of
discrimination as compared with Officials in active employ-
ment in so far as, because he was on CCP, he did not benefit
from the transitional measures which were applied to those
Officials in relation to promotion.

Lastly, by his fourth plea, the applicant challenges the failure to
take account of his seniority attained before and during his
CCP, in particular as regards the award of compensation points,
merit points and priority points. He thus considers that he was
worse off than Officials on secondment.